[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Measures to protect healthcare workers where there is risk of injury or infection from medical sharps became mandatory in the European Union (EU) from May 2013. Our research objective was to estimate the net budget impact of introducing safety-engineered devices (SEDs) for prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) in a Belgian hospital.
A 5-year incidence-based budget impact model was developed from the hospital inpatient perspective, comparing costs and outcomes with SEDs and prior-used conventional (non-safety) devices. The model accounts for device acquisition costs and costs of NSI management in 4 areas of application where SEDs are currently used: blood collection, infusion, injection and diabetes insulin administration. Model input data were sourced from the Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite, published studies, clinical guidelines and market research. Costs are discounted at 3%.
For a 420-bed hospital, 100% substitution of conventional devices by SEDs is estimated to decrease the cumulative 5-year incidence of NSIs from 310 to 75, and those associated with exposure to blood-borne viral diseases from 60 to 15. Cost savings from managing fewer NSIs more than offset increased device acquisition costs, yielding estimated 5-year overall savings of [euro sign]51,710. The direction of these results is robust to a range of sensitivity and model scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in the acquisition costs of SEDs, rates of NSI associated with conventional devices, and the acquisition costs of conventional devices.
NSIs are a significant potential risk with the use of sharp devices. The incidence of NSIs and the costs associated with their management can be reduced through the adoption of safer work practices, including investment in SEDs. For a Belgian hospital, the budget impact model reports that the incremental acquisition costs of SEDs are offset by the savings from fewer NSIs. The availability of more robust data for NSI reduction rates, and broadening the scope of the model to include ancillary measures for hospital conversion to SED usage, outpatient and paramedic device use, and transmission of other blood-borne diseases, would strengthen the model.
BMC Health Services Research 11/2013; 13(1):489. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-489 · 1.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Previous cost-effectiveness studies of cholinesterase inhibitors have modeled Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression and treatment effects through single or global severity measures, or progression to "Full Time Care". This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of donepezil versus memantine or no treatment in Germany by considering correlated changes in cognition, behavior and function.
Rates of change were modeled using trial and registry-based patient level data. A discrete event simulation projected outcomes for three identical patient groups: donepezil 10 mg, memantine 20 mg and no therapy. Patient mix, mortality and costs were developed using Germany-specific sources.
Treatment of patients with mild to moderately severe AD with donepezil compared to no treatment was associated with 0.13 QALYs gained per patient, and 0.01 QALYs gained per caregiver and resulted in average savings of €7,007 and €9,893 per patient from the healthcare system and societal perspectives, respectively. In patients with moderate to moderately-severe AD, donepezil compared to memantine resulted in QALY gains averaging 0.01 per patient, and savings averaging €1,960 and €2,825 from the healthcare system and societal perspective, respectively.In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, donepezil dominated no treatment in most replications and memantine in over 70% of the replications. Donepezil leads to savings in 95% of replications versus memantine.
Donepezil is highly cost-effective in patients with AD in Germany, leading to improvements in health outcomes and substantial savings compared to no treatment. This holds across a variety of sensitivity analyses.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Diagnosing and treating patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) at an early stage should improve the quality of life of the patient and caregiver. In the United Kingdom, cost-effectiveness of early assessment of individuals presenting with subjective memory complaints and treating those with AD with donepezil was evaluated.
A discrete event simulation of AD progression and the effect of treatment interventions was developed. Patient-level data from donepezil trials and a 7-year follow-up registry were used to model correlated longitudinal rates of change in cognition, behavior, and function. Other epidemiological and health services data, including estimates of undiagnosed dementia and delays in diagnosis, were based on published sources. Simulated individuals were followed up for 10 years.
In the base-case estimates, 17 patients need to be assessed to diagnose one patient with AD, resulting in an average assessment cost of £4100 ($6000; $1 US = £0.68 UK) per patient diagnosed (2007 cost year). In comparison with a scenario without early assessment or pharmacologic treatment, early assessment reduces health care costs by £3600 ($5300) per patient and societal costs by £7750 ($11,400). Savings are also substantial compared with treatment without early assessment, averaging £2100 ($3100) in health care costs, and £5700 ($8400) in societal costs. Results are most sensitive to estimates of patient care costs and the probability of patients reporting subjective memory complaints. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, early assessment leads to savings or is highly cost-effective in the majority of cases.
Although early assessment has significant up-front costs, identifying AD patients at an early stage results in cost savings and health benefits compared with no treatment or treatment in the absence of early assessment.
Alzheimer's & dementia: the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 03/2011; 8(1):22-30. DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2010.07.001 · 12.41 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Recommendations in the UK suggest restricting treatment of Alzheimer's disease with cholinesterase inhibitors, on cost-effectiveness grounds, to patients with moderate cognitive decline. As the economic analyses that informed these recommendations have been the subject of debate, we sought to address the potential limitations of existing models and produce estimates of donepezil treatment cost effectiveness in the UK using the most recent available data and simulation techniques. A discrete-event simulation was developed that predicts progression of Alzheimer's disease through correlated changes in cognition, behavioural disturbance and function. Patient-level data from seven randomized, placebo-controlled donepezil trials and a 7-year follow-up registry provided the basis for modeling longitudinal outcomes. Individuals in the simulation were assigned unique demographic and clinical characteristics and then followed for 10 years, with severity of disease tracked on continuous scales. Patient mix and costs were developed from UK-specific literature. Analyses were run for severity subgroups to evaluate outcomes for sub-populations with disease of mild versus moderate severity from both a healthcare payer and societal perspective. All costs are reported in pound, year 2007 values, and all outcomes are discounted at 3.5% per annum. Over 10 years, treatment of all patients with mild to moderate disease reduces overall direct medical costs by an average of over pound2300 per patient. When unpaid caregiver time is also taken into consideration, savings increase to over pound4700 per patient. Compared with untreated patients, patients receiving donepezil experience a discounted gain in QALYs averaging 0.11, with their caregivers gaining, on average, 0.01 QALYs. For the subset of patients starting treatment with more severe disease, savings are more modest, averaging about pound1600 and pound3750 from healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, donepezil dominated no treatment between 57% and 62% of replications when only medical costs were considered, and between 74% and 79% of replications when indirect costs were included, with results more favourable for treatment initiation in the mild versus moderate severity stages of the disease. Although the simulation results are not definitive, they suggest that donepezil leads to health benefits and cost savings when used to treat mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease in the UK. They also indicate that both benefits and savings may be greatest when treatment is started while patients are still in the mild stages of Alzheimer's disease.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a catastrophic childhood form of epilepsy. The syndrome is characterized by mental impairment, frequent seizures of multiple types that are particularly resistant to treatment, and high rates of seizure-related injury. With the introduction of newer, but more costly, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), it is important that decision makers are able to assess their value in the management of this rare and difficult-to-treat condition. To evaluate the cost effectiveness, from the UK NHS perspective, of rufinamide in patients with LGS. An individual patient-simulation model was developed to estimate the total treatment-related costs and clinical benefits of rufinamide compared with topiramate and lamotrigine over a 3-year time horizon. The model examines the treatment scenarios of adding rufinamide, lamotrigine or topiramate to older AEDs (standard therapy), or standard therapy alone within a primary-care or community setting. Three placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive AED treatment for children with LGS were analysed. There are no head-to-head comparator studies. Between 98 and 139 patients were randomized in each study and the mean age in each study was 10, 11 and 14 years. A mixed-treatment comparison using a random-effects model was carried out on the number of patients in each response category, using the placebo arms of the respective trials. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of successfully treated patients, defined as >50% reduction in the frequency of total seizures and drop attacks. The hypothesis being tested was formulated after data collection. Costs ( pound, year 2006/07 values) of patient monitoring, switching treatments, hospitalization due to seizure, treatment of adverse effects, and personal and social services were included in the analysis. Results of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were bootstrapped to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Over 3 years, adjunctive rufinamide resulted in higher total costs than topiramate and lamotrigine; however, with more patients being treated successfully, this leads to acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. If society is prepared to pay at least 250 pounds for a 1% increase in the number of successfully treated LGS patients, in terms of a 50% reduction in the frequency of drop attacks, the probability of the treatment with rufinamide being cost effective is >80%. This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that rufinamide results in more LGS patients being treated successfully at a reasonable cost from a UK NHS perspective.